From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. Holder

United States District Court, D. Columbia
May 12, 2010
Civil Action No. 10-0571 (D.D.C. May. 12, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-0571.

May 12, 2010


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to the screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Section 1915A requires the Court to "review, before docketing, if feasible . . . a [civil] complaint . . . in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity" and to dismiss the complaint upon a determination that, among other grounds, it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).

Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky, serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. He seeks review under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706, of the Bureau of Prisons' decisions pertaining to his "security designation and custody classification." Compl. ¶ 12. Although plaintiff invokes the "General Provisions" governing the management of federal prisons and prisoners set forth at 18 U.S.C. §§ 4001(b)(1), 4041, 4042(a), and 4081, see Compl. ¶¶ 5, 21-24, his claims arise from determinations specifically authorized by the "Imprisonment" subchapter codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3621. The APA does not "apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under [the imprisonment] subchapter." 18 U.S.C. § 3625; see Miller v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2010 WL 1172576, *5 (D.D.C., Mar. 29, 2010) (concluding that the plaintiff "has no right of action under the APA arising from the recalculation of his HOV score because BOP decisions involving custody classification and place of confinement are expressly exempt by statute from judicial review under the APA") (citing § 3625); Perez v. Lappin, 672 F. Supp. 2d 35, 44 (D.D.C. 2009) (stating that "by statute, the BOP's decision to assign a [public safety factor] is not subject to judicial review under the APA") (citing § 3625 and cases); Brown v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 602 F. Supp. 2d 173, 176 (D.D.C. 2009) ("The plaintiff's place of imprisonment, and his transfers to other federal facilities, are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).").

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: May 11, 2010


Summaries of

Allen v. Holder

United States District Court, D. Columbia
May 12, 2010
Civil Action No. 10-0571 (D.D.C. May. 12, 2010)
Case details for

Allen v. Holder

Case Details

Full title:Kenneth Allen, Plaintiff, v. Eric Holder et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: May 12, 2010

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-0571 (D.D.C. May. 12, 2010)

Citing Cases

Rush v. Samuels

The plaintiff is no more successful in seeking review of his CIM assignment under the APA. He demands review…